Paying in Blood for Liberal Arrogance

[F41]

Paying in Blood for Liberal Arrogance
The Fifth Column Justin Darr
July 10, 2006


If there is one trait that defines Liberalism, it is a hatred for consequences. No matter what the circumstance, Liberals are either trying to ignore, avoid, or blame others for the consequences of their own actions. Normally this would not be a problem, everyone should be free to live as goofy a life as they please, even if it happens to entail stumbling about blindly within a fog of their own self-delusions. However, the problem with Liberals is they cannot just be content with screwing up their own lives; they have to screw up the lives of those around them as well.

If a woman runs around and has unprotected sex, Liberals think the child should be killed because it is unfair to make people live with the consequences of their lack of morality. If someone had a bad childhood and has an unnatural hatred for the cherished beliefs of others, Liberals feel we should ostracize Christianity from society so these misfits do not quite so poignantly feel the sting of missing out on Christmas. Illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship so they do not have to deal with the consequences of ignoring immigration law. Disabled loved ones should be euthanized because selfish family members do not want to deal with their care. And, homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they do not want to acknowledge that two beings of the same sex cannot breed.

Reality is the greatest threat to Liberalism, not Conservatives. When reality comes crashing in, and Liberals are forced to see the consequences of their half baked ideas, their first response is to blame someone else for them. Normally, the people who get blamed will be the ones who said their ideas would never work in the first place, but since the Libs hate them, they make a convenient scapegoat. That might sound like an oxymoron, blaming others who said your ideas would not work after they have been proved right and your ideas did not work, but it far easier for Liberals to lash out in overly emotional incoherence than admit they might have ever made a mistake. more

 

[acludem]

New thread title - Typical illogical, right-wing horseshit

acludem

 

[theHawk]

Seems to hit the mark.

And the fact that you can't even agrue against any of the points and only retort with "horseshit" indicates its right on the money.

 

[007]

Seems to hit the mark.

And the fact that you can't even agrue against any of the points and only retort with "horseshit" indicates its right on the money.

Ditto.

 

[acludem]

Okay, here's a response:

If there is one trait that defines Liberalism, it is a hatred for consequences. No matter what the circumstance, Liberals are either trying to ignore, avoid, or blame others for the consequences of their own actions. Normally this would not be a problem, everyone should be free to live as goofy a life as they please, even if it happens to entail stumbling about blindly within a fog of their own self-delusions. However, the problem with Liberals is they cannot just be content with screwing up their own lives; they have to screw up the lives of those around them as well.

What????????? Liberals understand consquences, we just think they should apply to everyone, conservatives they are above consequences and whatever consequences occur can be blamed on liberals.

If a woman runs around and has unprotected sex, Liberals think the child should be killed because it is unfair to make people live with the consequences of their lack of morality. If someone had a bad childhood and has an unnatural hatred for the cherished beliefs of others, Liberals feel we should ostracize Christianity from society so these misfits do not quite so poignantly feel the sting of missing out on Christmas. Illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship so they do not have to deal with the consequences of ignoring immigration law. Disabled loved ones should be euthanized because selfish family members do not want to deal with their care. And, homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they do not want to acknowledge that two beings of the same sex cannot breed.

I don't know where to start with this. Abortion is rarely used as a method of contraception, I guess this author thinks women are property and shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. What does someone having a bad childhood have to do with Christianity? What the fuck logic is this? I have a disabled loved one and I don't want to euthanize him, but if someone makes the decision that they do not want to be kept alive by artificial means, who is this guy to tell them they have to stay alive? As for gay marriage, his argument evidently means that all married couples should be required to have children, heterosexuals who, for whatever health/genetic/biological reason, can't reproduce, and elderly people who are beyond their child bearing years shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

Reality is the greatest threat to Liberalism, not Conservatives. When reality comes crashing in, and Liberals are forced to see the consequences of their half baked ideas, their first response is to blame someone else for them. Normally, the people who get blamed will be the ones who said their ideas would never work in the first place, but since the Libs hate them, they make a convenient scapegoat. That might sound like an oxymoron, blaming others who said your ideas would not work after they have been proved right and your ideas did not work, but it far easier for Liberals to lash out in overly emotional incoherence than admit they might have ever made a mistake.

Liberalism is idealism within a realistic frame. Conservatism is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept reality accept on your own narrow terms. I don't know who "they" are, but many liberal ideas (i.e. allowing women to vote, ending slavery, the American Revolution, etc, have shaped our country).

So far, the only victims of Liberalism have been our society, culture, children, and way of life in general. However, this soon may change in the face of the international war on terror and nuclear proliferation.

If it was not bad enough that Liberals, headed up by Appeaser-in-Chief, Jimmy Carter, drafted the treaty that North Korea promptly ignored and developed nuclear weapons under, they are now complaining that the treaty did not work, and blaming Bush for it. Evidently, they do not feel that the United States has appeased the psychopath leader of North Korea quite enough, so off we go to the United Nations to learn the true meaning on international diplomatic incompetence. As we speak, the leaders of nations North Korea is not pointing nuclear missiles toward are deciding the fate of those who do. Perhaps, if we are lucky, the UN will get really tough with North Korea, and in addition to a press release expressing “regret” that North Korea is practicing its incineration of Tokyo, and order the United States to send 52 American hostages to Pyongyang to guarantee our good behavior.

Speaking of 52 American hostages, Iran, venue of President Carter’s last diplomatic victory for Liberalism’s cause, is going to develop nuclear weapons, as well. This time, the Bush Administration is doing what the Liberals want, and engaging in multilateral negotiations with a country that is the wellspring of global international terrorism. Not to be the pessimist, but they are not going to work. Iran is doing to pursue the development of nuclear weapons until either they have them, or someone destroys their nuclear production capabilities. We can stand around and negotiate forever, and this fact will not change. Liberals like to pretend that negotiations are an end unto themselves. That somehow, if we talk long enough, and give a hostile enemy concession after concession, peace will mysteriously erupt. The fact that negotiating with rogue regimes is no more effective today than it was in the days of Neville Chamberlain is lost on Liberals. Faced with the reality that the problem is not Iran’s poverty, infrastructure, or need for alternative fuel sources, but the radical terrorist regime running it, Liberals have once again chosen to blame Bush and the United States, in general, for objecting to Iran’s desire to “wipe Israel off the map.”

At no point have Liberals joined the threads together and realized that we are doing the exact same thing with Iran that we did with North Korea. If there is ever a negotiated compromise to the current crisis, all it will do is give the Iranians a few years to secretly violate the treaty and then drop their fully developed nuclear capability on the world as a fiat accompli.

Liberals are not only ignoring the consequences of their previous decisions, but arrogantly proceeding down another reckless course that will only end in disaster. Just as “The New York Times” has decided there will be no negative consequences to their divulging America’s innermost secrets in how it fight the war on terror, simply because they have decided there will not be any, the international community is gambling that their failed methods of the past will somehow now work with Iran and North Korea. My question is, how many millions will have to die before the Liberals admit they were wrong.

What the fuck???????? Conservatives did nothing but help and then exacerbate the rise of Islamic fundamentalism by supporting totalitarian regimes because they weren't communist. See Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Conservative foreign policy put us in a quaqmire in Vietnam, and has now put us into another quagmire in Iraq. How many thousands have died because Bush needlessly invaded a country without provocation or a plan to get out? Who did Jimmy Carter appease? I'm sorry conservatives don't like when the media reports the truth to the American people and it shows how stupid their policies are. Everyone has tried to battle Iran and North Korea over their nukes, except Pres. Bush. He's been too busy trying to save his father's legacy by attacking Iraq.

My question: How many millions will have to die before Conservatives get their heads out of the sand and face the reality of the 21st century world? A world where they cannot simply force their views on everyone else in this country and around the world and then call themselves patriotic? A world in which simplistic solutions can't solve complex problems.

acludem

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Okay, here's a response:


What????????? Liberals understand consquences, we just think they should apply to everyone, conservatives they are above consequences and whatever consequences occur can be blamed on liberals.

REALLY??!! what about your boy Teddy K.? He drove drunk, KILLED a woman, and didn't even serve any time. He broke the law, and still got to keep his job-trying to write or change laws. Oh, the irony.

Don't even get me started on the Hollyweird elite who are 99% liberal. They commit crimes on a regular basis and just get community service or even nothing at all.

...
I don't know where to start with this. Abortion is rarely used as a method of contraception, I guess this author thinks women are property and shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. ...

Where does this say that he thinks women are property? I can't seem to follow your diluded sense of logic to come to this conclusion. Your statement does not acknowledge that the child that was conceived, had no choice in it's creation. What the author was saying was either protect yourself with contraceptives like the pill or other means, instead of killing the child that had nothing to do with your poor choice to prevent its life from being started, or abstain from sex. If you use the argument that it is "just a bunch of cells"-so are you. Why doesn't someone abort you? Why are you much more worthy of a life than an innocent unborn child caught in the middle of something it had no choice in being?

As for gay marriage, his argument evidently means that all married couples should be required to have children, heterosexuals who, for whatever health/genetic/biological reason, can't reproduce, and elderly people who are beyond their child bearing years shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

come on... most couples that do marry, are younger and of childbearing age. Most choose to have children. Otherwise this country would be in big trouble like Europe is with a declining population of kids to replace the elderly.

Gay couples by history's proof, do not want kids. the few who do, can only adopt or give birth through AI. This requres an outside source for the aquisition of a child.

The biggest argument that gays are giving us is they want equal rights. What they really mean is special rights based on their sexual preference and their FEELINGS. A straight person cannot marry someone of the same sex either, so why do gays think they are being discriminated against??? A gay person can marry anyone they choose, as long as that person is the opposite sex-same as a straight person. Nothing special about there.

I would challenge more, but I do have to get back to work.

 

[theHawk]

What????????? Liberals understand consquences, we just think they should apply to everyone, conservatives they are above consequences and whatever consequences occur can be blamed on liberals.

Liberals don't seem to demonstrate that. Liberals are the ones that fight for the rights of convicted inmates to be released into society.
Conservatives understand very well about consequences, we've seen what liberal policies applied in the middle east does: Clinton's quagmire in Somalia, Clinton's 'cultural' policies that lead to 19 dead airmen at Kobar, Clinton letting Osama bin Laden go when he was offered him, Clintonian policies implemented by Jamie Gorelick that created the intelligence gap that allowed 9/11 to happen.

I don't know where to start with this. Abortion is rarely used as a method of contraception,

You have statisical proof of this statement? Abortion is shoved down poor and single womens throats by organizations like Planned Parenthood. Of course it is contraception, WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE? You honestly think that the vast majority of abortions in this country are done only because the mother's life is at risk? Wake up.

I guess this author thinks women are property and shouldn't be able to make their own decisions.

I would guess the author believes an unborn child has the right to live, as opposed to being silenced by being chopped up and thrown out into a garbage can. But I guess an unborn child is just 'property' isn't it?

but if someone makes the decision that they do not want to be kept alive by artificial means, who is this guy to tell them they have to stay alive

?
If someone wants to commit suicide, that is their choice. But if someone is unable to communicate I would think it would be cruel to assume the person wants to be killed off...

As for gay marriage, his argument evidently means that all married couples should be required to have children, heterosexuals who, for whatever health/genetic/biological reason, can't reproduce, and elderly people who are beyond their child bearing years shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

Couples that you describe could still provide an ideal environment to raise someone elses child.

Liberalism is idealism within a realistic frame. Conservatism is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept reality accept on your own narrow terms. I don't know who "they" are, but many liberal ideas (i.e. allowing women to vote, ending slavery, the American Revolution, etc, have shaped our country).

Those aren't liberal ideas. You seem to think that change within an established system is automatically 'liberal'.

What the fuck???????? Conservatives did nothing but help and then exacerbate the rise of Islamic fundamentalism by supporting totalitarian regimes because they weren't communist. See Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Conservative foreign policy put us in a quaqmire in Vietnam, and has now put us into another quagmire in Iraq. How many thousands have died because Bush needlessly invaded a country without provocation or a plan to get out? Who did Jimmy Carter appease? I'm sorry conservatives don't like when the media reports the truth to the American people and it shows how stupid their policies are. Everyone has tried to battle Iran and North Korea over their nukes, except Pres. Bush. He's been too busy trying to save his father's legacy by attacking Iraq.

Once again a liberal complaining about our past actions. I have yet to here a convincing arguement about what we should do differently. North Korea for example? What exatly is the liberal's stance on this? Continue to do what Clinton did? Or bomb them? So far all they do is complain about whatever Bush does.

My question: How many millions will have to die before Conservatives get their heads out of the sand and face the reality of the 21st century world? A world where they cannot simply force their views on everyone else in this country and around the world and then call themselves patriotic? A world in which simplistic solutions can't solve complex problems.

It can be argued both ways acludem, we can either sit back and do nothing and watch the violence unfold, or try to do something about it.
When will liberals get it through their heads that some situations simply must be dealt with through violence?